On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 01:54:42AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi >> <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> wrote: +Cc: Tejun, who is initial author of PCI managed resources implementation. > I thought about that and did not do it because here we are remapping > resources that are _not_ PCI bus resources (ie it is not PCI BARs we > are remapping), keeping the devm_* prefix would be more consistent > to the typical device drivers remapping functions pattern (ie a > typical PCI host controller driver would mix devm_ and pcim_ calls > which is a bit hard to parse), that was my rationale. > > I am not too fussed about that either way, I am happy to update it to > pcim_* though, it is Bjorn/Arnd's decision. I would vote for pcim_*() variant. >> 2. If you may notice there is no separate pcim_*map*() stuff, they are >> dynamically adapting to the case. > > I do not understand what you mean here I would ask you to elaborate > a bit more please so that I can do something about it. Oh, sorry, there are two examples currently, i.e. pci_enable_msi()/pci_enable_msix() and pci_request_region*() which has no "m" in the name, but are managed on release by pcim_release(). Some developers consider this as a bad idea, but so far no patch has been sent to introduce pcim_*() variants of those. So, regarding to your stuff, I would stick with "pcim" prefix. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
